http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/events/nasa_phoenix_landing/

Anyone know where they can be found?

Thanks!

And HiRISE now has a shot of the landing site showing parachute with aeroshell, lander and heat shield.

I have to eat my words. Within the hour, the HiRISE site has been updated to feature images of Phoenix on the surface (although as of this writing, some of the links to subimages did not work correctly).

HiBlog also contains the AMAZING photo (which Emily Lakdawalla also has on her blog) of the context of the parachute image … the descending Phoenix framed in by the huge Heimdall crater.

Care to revise your choice of BEST IMAGE EVER, Phil?

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/aajoe7/135024

- stop watching pro sports and we pay for most of NASA.
- space exploration costs about the same as the player payroll of the NHL + NBA.
- the Yankees, Mets and Tigers payroll at $481m is more than the $420m Mars Phoenix Budget…

Here are some numbers:

$6.7 billion: NFL Total Revenue
$6.1 billion: MLB Total Revenue
$4.7 billion: NASA Science Budget
$3.9 billion: NFL Player Payroll
$3.4 billion: NBA Total Revenue
$3.3 billion: NASA Space Shuttle Budget
$3.1 billion: NASA Space Exploration Budget
$2.7 billion: MLB Player Payroll
$2.3 billion: NHL Total Revenue
$1.9 billion: NBA Player Payroll
$1.8 billion: Int’l Space Station Budget
$1.2 billion: NHL Player Payroll

Sources:
2008 NASA Budget: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
MLB Team Payroll: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=nyy
Pro Sports Budgets: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/aajoe7/1350

News, a link farm of its own, images, video, upcoming events

About that golf analogy: Immediately after the guy said it, another guy jumped in and said, “And the hole is moving.” I died LOLing.

Manhattanhenge — where sunset will align with the street grid in Manhattan.

I thought of it because I saw Dr. Neil Tyson on TV this morning and I believe it was he that coined the phrase.

http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/

I don’t have a huge problem using the “golf-shot” analogy to convey degree of difficulty to the general public that may or may not have a full understanding of exactly what is required to achieve such a landing as Phoenix did.

However, I would expect that one would not use that same analogy while addressing a group of learned scientists or enthusiasts who already have a pretty good idea of the precision and complexity that is involced in such a landing. Or a large percentage of this blog community, for example.

I think the oft-used golf shot analogy is meant to convey a degree of difficulty and precision… and the skillset needed to accomplish the feat. Don’t take it too literally.

Think of it this way… imagine that you actually possessed a club and a ball capable of generating the necessary force and speed required to complete a journey, in flight, from LA to Australia. Now imagine having the skillset (and yes, technology) required to be able to judge windspeed, terrain, trajectory, appropriate force of the swing and all the other variables that would go in to making that golfball land in the cup in Australia… that is the comparison here. And I think it’s fairly apt. I have no problem with it, but I can see where some might disagree and consider it a complete apples to oranges comparison. I can see that side of the argument as well.

http://fawkes3.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=509&cID=8

I heard one of the mission scientists on NPR the other day talking about the landing, and he used the “golf ball” analogy, i.e., “Getting the Phoenix to land where we wanted it on Mars is like us hitting a golf ball from a tee in Los Angeles, having it fly 10000 miles across the Pacific, and getting a hole in one in Sydney.” (Paraphrased.)

I’ve heard this golf reference before when talking about similar landings or planetary orbits.

It seems to me that while one shouldn’t by any means undercut the accomplishment of getting Phoenix to land where they wanted it, this is a horrible analogy–getting a hole in one in golf relies on an extraordinary amount of luck, regardless of the skill of the player, and even Phil has strongly emphasized how they left nothing to chance, after the problem with the Polar Lander.

Of course, getting Phoenix to Mars is *nothing* like hitting a golf ball. You hit a golf ball, and it just goes–you don’t monitor its trajectory and track its flight details, adjust its path, account for variables, etc.

Using this sort of golf analogy, to me, might imply to someone that didn’t know better, that JPL relied much on luck, and not necessarily the skill/experience of the mission staff and engineers.

Or am I just being overly-sensitive?

I then came up with the bumper sticker, “I’d rather be ghotiing”.